> Economics only deals with scarcity (abundance is uninteresting because
> it's not a problem that needs solving -- but that's okay because
> scarcity is abundant). The only scarcity I can see here is the
> entrepreneurs needed to organize such an event. As you note, since
> you never heard back from them, they may have been too scarce.
I've heard this one before and can't follow the logic. Economics is
not judgmental. It is every bit as much about scarcity as it is
about abundance, it just comes to different conclusions.
But the main reason economic analysis is seldom
a sufficient predictor of outcomes is because it does not factor in
human reactions to non-quantifiable factors like marketing.
The best example is the old and badly flawed expression "if you build
a better mouse trap the world will beat a path to your door". As
anyone in the tech industries know, just inventing a better mousetrap
does not assure you of anything. You first have to be able to convince the
world you've built a better mousetrap. If you don't do that then
neither quality nor price will matter. The reason F or P will
succeed will be at least 50% determined by the quality of the
respective marketing efforts.
In the case above I doubt there was a scarcity of entrepreneurs, the
likely problem was a lack of marketing - the entrepreneurs either
did not hear about the event, or did not think it interesting enough
to invest their time.
Cheers, Bob.